• Eur J Anaesthesiol · Nov 2018

    Meta Analysis Comparative Study

    Deep vs. moderate neuromuscular blockade during laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

    • Sun-Kyung Park, Young G Son, Seokha Yoo, Taeyoon Lim, Won Ho Kim, and Jin-Tae Kim.
    • From the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Institute of the Research of the Perioperative Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea (S-KP, YGS, SY, TL, WHK, J-TK).
    • Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2018 Nov 1; 35 (11): 867-875.

    BackgroundPrevious studies have reported that deep neuromuscular block (posttetanic-count 1 to 2 twitches) improves surgical conditions during laparoscopy compared with moderate block (train-of-four count: 1 to 2 twitches). However, comparisons of surgical conditions were made using different scales and assessment intervals with variable results.ObjectiveTo explore the heterogeneity of previous comparisons between deep and moderate neuromuscular block.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Data SourcesMedline, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to October 2017.Eligibility CriteriaOur meta-analysis included RCTs comparing the effects of deep with moderate neuromuscular block on surgical field conditions during laparoscopic surgery. The frequency of excellent or good operating conditions on a surgical rating scale was compared. Heterogeneity was assessed by subgroup analyses.ResultsEleven RCTs involving 844 patients were included. On the surgical rating scale, the frequency of excellent or good operating conditions was higher with deep block compared with a moderate block (odds ratio 2.83, 95% confidence interval 1.34 to 5.99, P = 0.007, I = 59%). We analysed surgical rating according to the number of assessments made. There was a significant difference in surgical rating with multiple assessments, but no difference when the assessment was made on only one occasion. A significant difference in rating was noted with variable abdominal pressures; there was no significant difference with the same fixed abdominal pressure. Trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the cumulative z-curve crossed the O'Brien-Fleming significance boundary. However, required information size was not achieved.ConclusionDeep block was associated with excellent or good surgical rating more frequently than moderate block. However, this finding was not consistent on subgroup analyses based on frequencies of assessment of surgical conditions and abdominal pressure. Further studies are required to address the heterogeneity and power shortage demonstrated by the trial sequential analysis.

      Pubmed     Full text  

      Add institutional full text...

    This article appears in the collection: Neuromuscular myths: the lies we tell ourselves.

    Notes

    comment
    1

    Conclusion makes sense but should not form a blanket rule as surgical conditions during laparoscopic surgery are influenced by many factors

    Chris Tan  Chris Tan
     
    Do you have a pearl, summary or comment to save or share?
    250 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
856,928 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.